3seven1 wrote:I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

That's not what you said..
Read the part I put in bold, then the part I put larger.

You contradicted yourself, so either edit it to make it how you want to convey your ideas, or my remarks remain

GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

3seven1 wrote:I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

That's not what you said..Read the part I put in bold, then the part I put larger.

You contradicted yourself, so either edit it to make it how you want to convey your ideas, or my remarks remain

Yes, but that would be if you only had one territory. If you happen to have more than one territory you can attack with those as well.

3seven1 wrote:I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

That's not what you said..Read the part I put in bold, then the part I put larger.

You contradicted yourself, so either edit it to make it how you want to convey your ideas, or my remarks remain

Yes, but that would be if you only had one territory. If you happen to have more than one territory you can attack with those as well.

Then this is exactly how you play the game, you attack from one to another, then attack from there to another territory.

As for your second idea, it's even more stupid.

GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

You have me confused now. I'm not sure if you understand what i'm saying. I'll give another example just to be sure we're on the same page here.

Round 10:
One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.
I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.
I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so lucky that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attacked with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

Last edited by 3seven1 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

3seven1 wrote:You have me confused now. I'm not sure if you understand what i'm saying. I'll give another example just to be sure we're on the same page here.

Round 10:One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so luck that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attack with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

What's to stop me from advancing all my armies and attacking another territory that is not touching Congo?

It's still adjacent to South Africa, where I just attacked, isn't it?

Secondly, people play freestyle more then they would play this.
Lack will NEVER and I repeat NEVER get rid of Freestyle, because thats the first game type there was

GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

3seven1 wrote:You have me confused now. I'm not sure if you understand what i'm saying. I'll give another example just to be sure we're on the same page here.

Round 10:One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so luck that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attack with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

What's to stop me from advancing all my armies and attacking another territory that is not touching Congo?

It's still adjacent to South Africa, where I just attacked, isn't it?

Secondly, people play freestyle more then they would play this.Lack will NEVER and I repeat NEVER get rid of Freestyle, because thats the first game type there was

The only thing that would stop you is whatever code lack would use to make this style of game play a reality. You wouldn't be able to "chain attack" so you'd have to plan your battles with that in mind.

RE: Freestyle. I didn't know that was the first type of play. I guess there is no getting rid of it.

3seven1 wrote:You have me confused now. I'm not sure if you understand what i'm saying. I'll give another example just to be sure we're on the same page here.

Round 10:One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so lucky that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attacked with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

but thats the situation that my first post was about...what if your opponent has 40 sitting Weastern Europe

hes obviously gonna have alot of bonus armies...to add to it....

and they will probably have enough fortifications near your other areas to thwart off any attacks you might try.....

so he attacks North Africa...loses 2 you lose 7...he then attacks Egypt...he loses 5 you lose 7...your now down to 6...he still has 33.....plus whatever he deployed....

your not gonna even come close to winning with that type of force.....so why make that person wait another 24 hours to get the game over with?

why prolong the inevitable?

doesn't make sense at all

I mean like I said lack may go for it...but its not an option that the greater portion of members would use...

I doubt lack will do it for 10 players that want to use it

he would want to see that the majority of the members are for it before he spends hours or even days or weeks coding something like that into the scripts.....

you asked for opinions and we're giving them to you....its just our opinion's that YOU asked for

Dancing Mustard wrote:Are you flirting with me? Your angry posts are just the equivalent of school-yard pigtail-pulling.

wicked wrote:We like to give the mental patients a chance to get back on their meds.

If your opponent has 40 sitting in western Europe then you should be able to come from the other side and mess with his territories. Assuming you have territories on the other side. I think it would take a different strategy to play this way, naturally it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea.

3seven1 wrote:If your opponent has 40 sitting in western Europe then you should be able to come from the other side and mess with his territories. Assuming you have territories on the other side. I think it would take a different strategy to play this way, naturally it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea.

I doubt it would be anyones, I definitely wouldn't even consider playing this option.
Ever

GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

I want to bring back this old post because I think this was one of the best ideas anyone has had in a while. I wish we could hear lacks opinion on it, or at least some opinions of the people, because so far its just been one guy who really doesn't like this idea.

And he doesn't seem to understand how it works. Talking about having 40 armies on one territory, you wouldn't do that on this setting, because that would leave you few places to attack. Different settings call for different strategies, you're just thinking in the strategy you do for normal escalating games where you deploy a whole bunch on one spot and plow through the map. Not much thought into that, not much of a strategy. But it works.

In this mode that doesn't work. You will have to use a new strategy to both attack and defend yourself. Deploy to different spots so you can attack from them both. And people concerned about the ending being slow it really wouldnt be that slow. No, you cant deploy all your armies to one spot and finish him off in one turn, But if you deploy to a couple spots, you probably surround him, you can attack most of his territories, It will only add a couple rounds to the endgame.

For those of you who still don't understand exactly how this mode will work. Very simply, it just means that in one turn, you cannot attack from a territory that you conquered that same turn. Thats it.

keep ur head up 3seven1...people love to bash what they cant understand. I know exactly where ur comin from and if you take a look at my thread, which was based off of Risk II for the PC, u'll clearly see the majority of people in favor for it.

I play this way with Risk 2210 AD. This game has commanders, water territories and space territories. You take turns in "years", after all players take their turns the games moves on to the next year. By only being able to attack territories that you are touching and not continuing attacks past that, it creates a certain strategy that is very useful in this type of play. I don't mind that this option isn't liked by everybody, that doesn't matter to me. I'll just play that way when we play the actual board game. It was simply a suggestion to see what others thought...it appears as thought most people act like little kids, "I DON'T LIKE IT, IT'S STUPID, STOP SUGGESTING THIS IDEA, NOOB" So that's fine, a simple addition to my ignore list and that proble is gone.

Basic idea: Instead of being able to conquer from one country, advance, conquer another country, advance, and so on, one can only attack from the countries they start the turn with.Meaning, Newly conquered countries cannot attack for the duration of the turn they are conquered on.

Specifics: At the start of a turn, you can deploy as normal. Once the attacks start though, a country can only conquer adjacent (or, for bombarding territories, countries within their range) territories for the entire turn. More than one country can attack per turn. So, no country that has been conquered during any given turn can attack during that turn...e.g. if Country A attacks Country B during Turn X, Country B cannot attack until the next turn. (Thanks to Ditocoaf and OliverFA for notifying me of this specification not being included in the idea description)

There is one adopted exception to the rule: the "killer neutral" territories. These are territories that automatically revert back to neutral armies if owned by a player at the start of their turn (ex. the Missile Launch territory of Arms Race!). For these territories, it has been decided that the most logical solution is to enable those territories to be attacked through, but only to adjacent (or bombardment) territories. To continue the Missile Launch example, this would mean that players who own the Warhead at the start of their turn can conquer the Missile Launch territory and then bombard from it as normal. On maps like The Citadel, where the killer neutral borders regular territories, one would be able to attack through it. This means that if one started on Grimsley Hall, they could conquer The Parade Deck, and then attack any and all of the adjoining territories on that same turn, but not being allowed to attack from those until the next turn. This exception is to avoid unwinnable games and stalemates.

This will improve the following aspects of the site: I think it would add a nice new option for players looking for new ways to play Risk. Think about it: it would be far harder to win based solely on a string of lucky dice. Fortifications and deployments would have to be carefully planned and executed in order to ensure that one would have a strong enough influence in all parts of the map that are of concern to them. Also, even if one's opponent had a large stack of armies, say, 100 armies, on Indonesia, it wouldn't be any concern for the player who is vying for control in Europe. I think this would add a very interesting aspect to the gameplay. Lastly, I don't think this should be made the ONLY way of attacking: I think it should be made an option, like adjacent fortifications. Anyways, Give me your feedback please! I'd like to know what other people think about my idea

Last edited by n00blet on Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:54 am, edited 12 times in total.

n00blet wrote:Also, even if one's opponent had a large stack of armies, say, 100 armies, on Indonesia, it wouldn't be any concern for the player who is vying for control in Europe.

Couldn't said person attack and move 99 to China, attack and move 98 to Afghanistan, attack and move 97 to Ukraine?

i'm sorry, maybe it wasnt clear. armies that are advanced cannot attack during the turn that they are advanced in. in other words, that set of armies can only attack once per turn, no matter what country they are on